92 ideas
18559 | Philosophy is empty if it does not in some way depend on matters of fact [Machery] |
Full Idea: Save, maybe, for purely formal (e.g. logical) theories, philosophical claims whose correctness does not depend, however indirectly, on matters of fact are empty: they are neither true nor false. | |
From: Edouard Machery (Doing Without Concepts [2009], Intro) | |
A reaction: I subscribe to this view. I'd even say that logic is empty if it is not answerable to the facts. The facts are nature, so this is a naturalistic manifesto. |
17240 | Definitions are the first step in philosophy [Hobbes] |
Full Idea: In beginning philosophy, the first beginning is from definitions. | |
From: Thomas Hobbes (De Corpore (Elements, First Section) [1655], 1.6.15) | |
A reaction: Note that he doesn't say that definitions are the aim of philosophy, as some analysts might think. |
17237 | Definitions of things that are caused must express their manner of generation [Hobbes] |
Full Idea: Definitions of things which may be understood to have some cause, must consist of such names as express the cause or manner of their generation, as when we define a circle to be a figure made by the circumduction of a straight line in a plane etc. | |
From: Thomas Hobbes (De Corpore (Elements, First Section) [1655], 1.6.13) | |
A reaction: His account of the circle is based on its mode of construction, which is the preferred account of Euclid, rather than a statement of its pure nature. |
17239 | Definition is resolution of names into successive genera, and finally the difference [Hobbes] |
Full Idea: The definition is nothing but a resolution of the name into its most universal parts; ...definitions of this kind always consist of genus and difference; the former names being all, till the last, general; and the last of all, difference. | |
From: Thomas Hobbes (De Corpore (Elements, First Section) [1655], 1.6.14) | |
A reaction: This is basically the scholastic Aristotelian view of definition. Note that Hobbes explicitly denies that the last step of the definition is general in character. |
17241 | A defined name should not appear in the definition [Hobbes] |
Full Idea: A defined name ought not to be repeated in the definition. ...No total can be part of itself. | |
From: Thomas Hobbes (De Corpore (Elements, First Section) [1655], 1.6.15) |
17242 | 'Petitio principii' is reusing the idea to be defined, in disguised words [Hobbes] |
Full Idea: 'Petitio principii' is when the conclusion to be proved is disguised in other words, and put for the definition or principle from whence it is to be demonstrated. | |
From: Thomas Hobbes (De Corpore (Elements, First Section) [1655], 1.6.18) |
17245 | A part of a part is a part of a whole [Hobbes] |
Full Idea: A part of a part is a part of a whole. | |
From: Thomas Hobbes (De Corpore (Elements, First Section) [1655], 2.07.09) |
17258 | If we just say one, one, one, one, we don't know where we have got to [Hobbes] |
Full Idea: By saying one, one, one, one, and so forward, we know not what number we are at beyond two or three. | |
From: Thomas Hobbes (De Corpore (Elements, First Section) [1655], 2.12.05) | |
A reaction: This makes ordinals sound like meta-numbers. |
17253 | Change is nothing but movement [Hobbes] |
Full Idea: All mutation consists in motion only | |
From: Thomas Hobbes (De Corpore (Elements, First Section) [1655], 2.09.06) | |
A reaction: Another little gem of simplicity from Hobbes, and one with which I am inclined to agree. The value of a variable can 'change', but that may be metaphorical. |
18564 | Do categories store causal knowledge, or typical properties, or knowledge of individuals? [Machery] |
Full Idea: Psychologists have attempted to determine whether a concept of a category stores some causal knowledge about the members, some knowledge about their typical properties, or some knowledge about specific members. | |
From: Edouard Machery (Doing Without Concepts [2009], 1.3.2) | |
A reaction: I take there to be a psychological process of 'generalisation', so that knowledge of individuals is not and need not be retained. I am dubious about entities called 'properties', so I will vote for causal (including perceptual) knowledge. |
18604 | Are quick and slow categorisation the same process, or quite different? [Machery] |
Full Idea: Are categorisation under time pressure and categorisation without time pressure ...two different cognitive competences? | |
From: Edouard Machery (Doing Without Concepts [2009], 5.1.1) | |
A reaction: This is a psychologist's question. Introspectively, they do seem to be rather different, as there is no time for theorising and explaining when you are just casting your eyes over the landscape. |
18573 | For each category of objects (such as 'dog') an individual seems to have several concepts [Machery] |
Full Idea: I contend that the best available evidence suggests that for each category of objects an individual typically has several concepts. For instance, instead of having a single concept of dog, an individual has in fact several concepts of dog. | |
From: Edouard Machery (Doing Without Concepts [2009], 3) | |
A reaction: Machery's book is a sustained defence of this hypothesis, with lots of examples from psychology. Any attempt by philosophers to give a neat and tidy account of categorisation looks doomed. |
18602 | A thing is classified if its features are likely to be generated by that category's causal laws [Machery] |
Full Idea: A to-be-classified object is considered a category member to the extent that its features were likely to have been generated by the category's causal laws. | |
From: Edouard Machery (Doing Without Concepts [2009], 4.4.4) | |
A reaction: [from Bob Rehder, psychologist, 2003] This is an account of categorisation which arises from the Theory Theory view of concepts, of which I am a fan. I love this idea, which slots neatly into the account I have been defending. Locke would like this. |
18565 | There may be ad hoc categories, such as the things to pack in your suitcase for a trip [Machery] |
Full Idea: There may be ad hoc categories, as when people think about the things to pack in a small suitcase for a trip abroad. | |
From: Edouard Machery (Doing Without Concepts [2009], 1.4.1) | |
A reaction: This seems to be obviously correct, though critics might say that 'category' is too grand a term for such a grouping. |
16670 | Accidents are just modes of thinking about bodies [Hobbes] |
Full Idea: An accident is a mode of conceiving a body. | |
From: Thomas Hobbes (De Corpore (Elements, First Section) [1655], 2.08.02) | |
A reaction: In contrast to the other thinkers who followed Suárez on modes in the early 17th century, Hobbes thinks they are just ways of 'conceiving' bodies, rather than actual features of them. |
16621 | Accidents are not parts of bodies (like blood in a cloth); they have accidents as things have a size [Hobbes] |
Full Idea: An accident's being in a body is not to be taken as something contained in that body - as if redness were in blood like blood in a bloody cloth, as part of the whole, for then accident would be a body. It is like body having size or rest or movement. | |
From: Thomas Hobbes (De Corpore (Elements, First Section) [1655], 2.08.03) | |
A reaction: [compressed] Hobbes is fishing for something like the Quinean view of properties, but no one seems to be able to articulate this sceptical view very well. Pasnau says he means to talk of 'the mode of conceiving a body' (De C 8.2). |
16734 | The complete power of an event is just the aggregate of the qualities that produced it [Hobbes] |
Full Idea: The power of agent and patient taken together, which may be called the complete power, is the same as the complete cause, for each consists in the aggregation together of all the accidents that are required to produce an effect in both agent and patient. | |
From: Thomas Hobbes (De Corpore (Elements, First Section) [1655], 2.10.01) | |
A reaction: They treat powers as macro phenomena, and don't seem to have a sense of the basic powers that build up the big picture. |
17247 | The only generalities or universals are names or signs [Hobbes] |
Full Idea: Nothing is general or universal besides names or signs. | |
From: Thomas Hobbes (De Corpore (Elements, First Section) [1655], 2.08.05) | |
A reaction: This is the perfect motto for nominalists, among which I am inclined to include myself. Hobbes had a fabulous gift for economy of phrasing. This website is dedicated to that ideal. Reality does not contain generalities (obviously!!). |
18570 | There may be several ways to individuate things like concepts [Machery] |
Full Idea: Philosophers have rarely explained why they believe that there is a single correct way of individuating concepts. Many entities can be legitimately individuated in several ways. | |
From: Edouard Machery (Doing Without Concepts [2009], 2.1.3) | |
A reaction: I cite this under 'individuation' because I think that is a very garbled concept. I agree with this point, even though I don't really know exactly what individuation is supposed to be. |
14960 | Bodies are independent of thought, and coincide with part of space [Hobbes] |
Full Idea: A body is that, which having no dependence on our thought, is coincident or coextended with some part of space. | |
From: Thomas Hobbes (De Corpore (Elements, First Section) [1655], 2.08.01) | |
A reaction: This rather Cartesian view doesn't seem to offer any distinction between empty space and space containing an 'object'. Presumably it is the ancestor of the Quinean account just in terms of space-time points. Don't like it. |
17250 | If you separate the two places of one thing, you will also separate the thing [Hobbes] |
Full Idea: One body cannot be in two places at the same time, ...for the place that a body fills being divided into two, the placed body will also be divided into two; the place and the body that fills that place are divided both together. | |
From: Thomas Hobbes (De Corpore (Elements, First Section) [1655], 2.08.08) | |
A reaction: If every time you manipulated one body it affected both of them, you might say that one body was in two places, rather like a mirror image. |
17249 | If you separated two things in the same place, you would also separate the places [Hobbes] |
Full Idea: Two bodies cannot be together in the same place, ..because when a body that fills its whole place is divided into two, the place itself is divided into two also, so that there will be two places. | |
From: Thomas Hobbes (De Corpore (Elements, First Section) [1655], 2.08.08) | |
A reaction: The wonderful things about philosophy is that you are faced with obvious truths of the world, and cannot begin to think why they are true - and then up steps a philosopher and offers you a reason. |
17248 | If a whole body is moved, its parts must move with it [Hobbes] |
Full Idea: How can any whole body be moved, unless all its parts be moved together with it? | |
From: Thomas Hobbes (De Corpore (Elements, First Section) [1655], 2.08.05) | |
A reaction: This might be a distinguishing mark for a whole physical body. I think it is probably the main mark for ordinary folk. I've never found this idea in Aristotle. |
16790 | A body is always the same, whether the parts are together or dispersed [Hobbes] |
Full Idea: A body is always the same, whether the parts of it be put together or dispersed; or whether it be congealed or dissolved. | |
From: Thomas Hobbes (De Corpore (Elements, First Section) [1655], 2.11.07) | |
A reaction: This appears to be a commitment by Hobbes to what we now call 'classical' mereology - that any bunch of things can count as a whole, whether they are together or dispersed. He seems to mean more than a watch surviving dismantling. |
17244 | To make a whole, parts needn't be put together, but can be united in the mind [Hobbes] |
Full Idea: In composition, it is to be understood that for the making up of a whole there is no need of putting the parts together, so as to make them touch one another, but only of collecting them into one sum in the mind. | |
From: Thomas Hobbes (De Corpore (Elements, First Section) [1655], 2.07.08) | |
A reaction: This seems to the 'unrestricted composition' of classical mereology, since it appears that Hobbes offers no restriction on which parts can be united by a mind, no matter how bizarre. |
17233 | Particulars contain universal things [Hobbes] |
Full Idea: Universal things are contained in the nature of singular things. | |
From: Thomas Hobbes (De Corpore (Elements, First Section) [1655], 1.6.04) | |
A reaction: That is the neatest and most accurate summary of the situation I have ever read. Particulars come first, but they are all riddled with generalities (but that is not as well said as Hobbes's remark). |
17246 | Some accidental features are permanent, unless the object perishes [Hobbes] |
Full Idea: There are certain accidents which can never perish except the body perish also. | |
From: Thomas Hobbes (De Corpore (Elements, First Section) [1655], 2.08.03) | |
A reaction: He is just making an observation, and not proposing a theory about essence. |
17251 | The feature which picks out or names a thing is usually called its 'essence' [Hobbes] |
Full Idea: That accident for which we give a certain name to any body, or the accident which denominates its subject, is commonly called the essence thereof. | |
From: Thomas Hobbes (De Corpore (Elements, First Section) [1655], 2.08.23) | |
A reaction: This is clearly a prelude to Locke's more carefully formulated 'nominal essence'. Fairly obvious, for nominalist empiricists. A bit surprising to say this was 'common'. |
17257 | It is the same river if it has the same source, no matter what flows in it [Hobbes] |
Full Idea: That will be the same river which flows from one and the same fountain, whether the same water, or other water, or something other than water, flow thence. | |
From: Thomas Hobbes (De Corpore (Elements, First Section) [1655], 2.11.07) | |
A reaction: This makes the source the one necessity for a river. I think the end matters too. If the Thames reversed direction, and flowed into Wales, it would not be the Thames any more. |
12853 | Some individuate the ship by unity of matter, and others by unity of form [Hobbes] |
Full Idea: In the Ship of Theseus, some place individuity in the unity of matter; others, in the unity of form. | |
From: Thomas Hobbes (De Corpore (Elements, First Section) [1655], 2.11.07) | |
A reaction: Simons raises this comment into a dogma, that there are at least two objects present in the ship. If I offered you a sum for the contents of your house, they would have a unity of monetary value. |
17256 | If a new ship were made of the discarded planks, would two ships be numerically the same? [Hobbes] |
Full Idea: If some man kept the old planks as they were taken out, and by putting them afterwards together again in the same order, had again made a ship of them, ...there would have been two ships numerically the same, which is absurd. | |
From: Thomas Hobbes (De Corpore (Elements, First Section) [1655], 2.11.07) | |
A reaction: This is the origin of the famous modern problematical example of the Ship of Theseus. The ancient example is just the case of whether you step into the same river, but using an artefact with parts, to make it clearer. |
16794 | As an infant, Socrates was not the same body, but he was the same human being [Hobbes] |
Full Idea: It makes a great difference to ask concerning Socrates whether he is the same human being or whether he is the same body. For his body, when he is old, cannot be the same it was when he was an infant. …He can, however, be the same human being. | |
From: Thomas Hobbes (De Corpore (Elements, First Section) [1655], 2.11.07) | |
A reaction: This is not commitment to full (Geachian) relative identity, but it notes the problem. |
17255 | Two bodies differ when (at some time) you can say something of one you can't say of the other [Hobbes] |
Full Idea: Two bodies are said to differ from one another, when something may be said of one of them, which cannot be said of the other at the same time. | |
From: Thomas Hobbes (De Corpore (Elements, First Section) [1655], 2.11.02) | |
A reaction: Note the astute addition of 'at the same time'. Note also that it is couched in terms of what is true, rather than in terms of 'properties' or 'accidents'. |
16582 | We can imagine a point swelling and contracting - but not how this could be done [Hobbes] |
Full Idea: Even if we can feign in our mind that a point swells to a huge bulk and then contracts to a point - imagining something's made from nothing (ex nihilo), and nothing's made from something - still we cannot comprehend how this could be done in nature. | |
From: Thomas Hobbes (De Corpore (Elements, First Section) [1655], 2.08.20) | |
A reaction: [compressed] Pasnau notes that this offers two sorts of conceivability, of something happening, and of a reason for it happening. A really nice idea, significant (I think) for scientific essentialists, who say possibilities are fewer than you think. |
18614 | Vertical arguments say eliminate a term if it picks out different natural kinds in different theories [Machery] |
Full Idea: Vertical arguments for eliminativism of theoretical terms note that distinct types of generalisation do not line up with each other. ...It is argued that the theoretical term picks out more than one natural kind. | |
From: Edouard Machery (Doing Without Concepts [2009], 8.2.3) | |
A reaction: He mentions 'depression', as behavioural and cognitive; the former includes apes, and the latter doesn't. It is a nice principle for tidying up theories. |
18615 | Horizontal arguments say eliminate a term if it fails to pick out a natural kind [Machery] |
Full Idea: Horizontal arguments for eliminativism of theoretical terms say that some terms should be eliminated if they do not pick out a natural kind. | |
From: Edouard Machery (Doing Without Concepts [2009], 8.2.3) | |
A reaction: This is the one Machery likes, but I would say that it is less obvious than the 'vertical' version, since picking out a natural kind may not be the only job of a theoretical term. (p.238: Machery agrees!) |
18616 | If a term doesn't pick out a kind, keeping it may block improvements in classification [Machery] |
Full Idea: If a hypothesised natural kind term fails to pick out a natural kind, keeping this theoretical term is likely to prevent the development of a new classification system that would identify the relevant kinds. | |
From: Edouard Machery (Doing Without Concepts [2009], 8.2.3) | |
A reaction: I'm persuaded. This is why metaphysicians should stop talking about 'properties'. |
18609 | Psychologists use 'induction' as generalising a property from one category to another [Machery] |
Full Idea: Typically, psychologists use 'induction' to refer to the capacity to generalise a property from a category (the source) to another category (the target). | |
From: Edouard Machery (Doing Without Concepts [2009], 7.1.1) | |
A reaction: This is because psychologists are interested in the ongoing activities of thought. Philosophers step back a bit, to ask how the whole thing could get started. Philosophical induction has to start with individuals and single observations. |
18610 | 'Ampliative' induction infers that all members of a category have a feature found in some of them [Machery] |
Full Idea: Induction is 'ampliative' when it infers that all or most members of a category possess a property from the fact that some of its members have this property. | |
From: Edouard Machery (Doing Without Concepts [2009], 7.1.1) | |
A reaction: This sounds like a simple step in reasoning, but actually it is more like explanation, and will involve overall coherence and probability, rather than a direct conclusion. This invites sceptical questions. The last one observed may be the exception. |
17238 | Science aims to show causes and generation of things [Hobbes] |
Full Idea: The end of science is the demonstration of the causes and generation of things. | |
From: Thomas Hobbes (De Corpore (Elements, First Section) [1655], 1.6.13) |
17260 | Imagination is just weakened sensation [Hobbes] |
Full Idea: Imagination is nothing else but sense decaying or weakened by the absence of the object. | |
From: Thomas Hobbes (De Corpore (Elements, First Section) [1655], 4.25.07) | |
A reaction: This sounds more like memory than imagination. He needs to say something about unusual combinations of memories, I would have thought. |
19373 | A 'conatus' is an initial motion, experienced by us as desire or aversion [Hobbes, by Arthur,R] |
Full Idea: Hobbes' notion of 'conatus' is a 'beginning of motion' - a motion through a point of space in an instant of time. In a human subject this is experience as desire or aversion. It thus forms a bridge between physics and psychology. | |
From: report of Thomas Hobbes (De Corpore (Elements, First Section) [1655], p.178) by Richard T.W. Arthur - Leibniz 3 'Worlds' | |
A reaction: This sounds rather like the primitive concept of a power which I like, but the term seems to be used very vaguely, and never discussed carefully. The idea provoked Leibniz to connect physical force with mental life. |
3102 | Why don't we experience or remember going to sleep at night? [Magee] |
Full Idea: As a child it was incomprehensible to me that I did not experience going to sleep, and never remembered it. When my sister said 'Nobody remembers that', I just thought 'How does she know?' | |
From: Bryan Magee (Confessions of a Philosopher [1997], Ch.I) | |
A reaction: This is actually evidence for something - that we do not have some sort of personal identity which is separate from consciousness, so that "I am conscious" would literally mean that an item has a property, which it can lose. |
2948 | Sensation is merely internal motion of the sentient being [Hobbes] |
Full Idea: Sense in the sentient, can be nothing else but motion in some of the internal parts of the sentient; and the parts so moved are parts of the organs of sense. | |
From: Thomas Hobbes (De Corpore (Elements, First Section) [1655], 3.15.02) | |
A reaction: Amazingly bold for the time, and presumably influenced by Lucretius. I am sympathetic, but to suggest that sensation is nothing more sounds a bit like a category mistake. Has he grasped that the brain is involved? |
18562 | Connectionists cannot distinguish concept-memories from their background, or the processes [Machery] |
Full Idea: Connectionists typically do not distinguish between processes and memory stores, and, more importantly, it is unclear whether connectionists can draw a distinction between the knowledge stored in a concept and the background. | |
From: Edouard Machery (Doing Without Concepts [2009], 1.1) | |
A reaction: In other words connectionism fails to capture the structured nature of our thinking. There is an innate structure (which, say I, should mainly be seen as 'mental files'). |
18561 | We can identify a set of cognitive capacities which are 'higher order' [Machery] |
Full Idea: Categorization, deduction, induction, analogy-making, linguistic understanding, and planning - all of these are higher cognitive capacities. | |
From: Edouard Machery (Doing Without Concepts [2009], 1.1) | |
A reaction: His 'lower' competences are perceptual and motor. I say the entry to the higher competences are abstraction, idealisation and generalisation. If you can't do these (chimpanzees!) you will not be admitted. |
17261 | Apart from pleasure and pain, the only emotions are appetite and aversion [Hobbes] |
Full Idea: All the passions, called passions of the mind, consist of appetite and aversion, except pure pleasure and pain. | |
From: Thomas Hobbes (De Corpore (Elements, First Section) [1655], 4.25.13) | |
A reaction: He now faces the challenge of explaining all the many other emotions in terms of these two. Good luck with that, Thomas. |
17236 | Words are not for communication, but as marks for remembering what we have learned [Hobbes] |
Full Idea: The use of words consists in this, that they may serve for marks by which whatsoever we have found out may be recalled to memory ...but not as signs by which we declare the same to others. | |
From: Thomas Hobbes (De Corpore (Elements, First Section) [1655], 1.6.11) | |
A reaction: This exactly fits the idea of mental files, of which I am a fan. That this is the actual purpose of language is an unusual but interesting view. |
18574 | Concepts for categorisation and for induction may be quite different [Machery] |
Full Idea: In general, concepts that are used when we categorise and concepts that are used when we reason inductively could have little in common. | |
From: Edouard Machery (Doing Without Concepts [2009], 3.2.1) | |
A reaction: In the end he is going to reject concepts altogether, so he would say this. Friends of concepts would be very surprised if the mind were so uneconomical in its activities, given that induction seems to be up to its neck in categorisation. |
18588 | Concept theories aim at their knowledge, processes, format, acquisition, and location [Machery] |
Full Idea: A theory of concepts should determine the knowledge stored in them, and the cognitive processes that use concepts. Ideally it should also characterise their format, their acquisition, and (increasingly) localise them in the brain. | |
From: Edouard Machery (Doing Without Concepts [2009], 4) | |
A reaction: Machery reveals his dubious scientism in the requirement to localise them in the brain. That strikes me as entirely irrelevant to both philosophy and psychology. I want the format, acquisition and knowledge. |
18611 | We should abandon 'concept', and just use 'prototype', 'exemplar' and 'theory' [Machery] |
Full Idea: The notion of 'concept' ought to be eliminated from the theoretical vocabulary of psychology, and replaced by the notions of prototype, exemplar, and theory. | |
From: Edouard Machery (Doing Without Concepts [2009], 8) | |
A reaction: Machery's main thesis. I think similarly about 'property' in metaphysics. It embraces different ideas, and if we eliminated 'property' (and used predicate, class, fundamental power, complex power) we would do better. Psychologists have dropped 'memory'. |
18567 | In the philosophy of psychology, concepts are usually introduced as constituents of thoughts [Machery] |
Full Idea: In the philosophy of psychology, concepts are usually introduced as constituents, components, or parts of thoughts. | |
From: Edouard Machery (Doing Without Concepts [2009], 1.4.3) | |
A reaction: My instincts are against this. I take the fundamentals of concepts to be mental responses to distinct individual items in the world. Thought builds up from that. He says psychologists themselves don't see it this way. Influence of Frege. |
18569 | In philosophy theories of concepts explain how our propositional attitudes have content [Machery] |
Full Idea: A philosophical theory of concepts is a semantic theory for our propositional attitudes: it explains how our thoughts can have the content they have. | |
From: Edouard Machery (Doing Without Concepts [2009], 2.1.2) | |
A reaction: I suppose this is what I am interested in. I want to know in what way concepts form a bridge between content and world. I am more interested in the propositions, and less interested in our attitudes towards them. |
18563 | By 'concept' psychologists mean various sorts of representation or structure [Machery] |
Full Idea: Psychologists use 'concept' interchangeably with 'mental representation', 'category representation', 'knowledge representation', 'knowledge structure', 'semantic representation', and 'conceptual structures'. | |
From: Edouard Machery (Doing Without Concepts [2009], 1.1) | |
A reaction: [Machery gives references for each of these] Machery is moving in to attack these, but we look to psychologists to give some sort of account of what a concept might consist of, such that it could be implemented by neurons. |
18558 | Concept theorists examine their knowledge, format, processes, acquisition and location [Machery] |
Full Idea: Psychological theories of concepts try to describe the knowledge stored in concepts, the format of concepts, the cognitive processes that use the concepts, the acquisition of concepts, and the localization of concepts in the brain. | |
From: Edouard Machery (Doing Without Concepts [2009], Intro) | |
A reaction: I suppose it would the first two that are of central interest. What individuates a concept (its 'format') and what are the contents of a concept. The word 'stored' seems to imply a mental files view. |
18557 | Psychologists treat concepts as long-term knowledge bodies which lead to judgements [Machery] |
Full Idea: In psychology, concepts are characterized as those bodies of knowledge that are stored in long-term memory and used most higher cognitive competences when these processes result in judgements. | |
From: Edouard Machery (Doing Without Concepts [2009], Intro) | |
A reaction: Machery mounts an attack on this idea. I like the 'mental files' idea, where a concept starts as a label, and then acquires core knowledge, and then further information. The 'concept' is probably no more than a label, and minimal starter information. |
18560 | Psychologist treat concepts as categories [Machery] |
Full Idea: Psychologists often use 'concept' and 'category' interchangeably. | |
From: Edouard Machery (Doing Without Concepts [2009], 1.1) | |
A reaction: Well they shouldn't. Some concepts are no more than words, and don't categorise anything. Some things may be categorised by a complex set of concepts. |
18592 | The concepts OBJECT or AGENT may be innate [Machery] |
Full Idea: Several concepts, such as OBJECT or AGENT, may be innate. | |
From: Edouard Machery (Doing Without Concepts [2009], 4.1.4) | |
A reaction: It is one thing to say that we respond to objects and agents, and another to say that we have those 'concepts'. Presumably birds, and even bees, have to relate to similar features. Add PROCESS? |
18584 | One hybrid theory combines a core definition with a prototype for identification [Machery] |
Full Idea: One hybrid theory of concepts says they have both a core and an identification procedure. The core is a definition (necessary and sufficient conditions), while the identification procedure consists of a prototype (the properties typical of a category). | |
From: Edouard Machery (Doing Without Concepts [2009], 3.3.1) | |
A reaction: This combines the classical and prototype theories of concepts. I like it because it fits the idea of 'mental files' nicely (see Recanati). If concepts are files (as in a database) they will have aspects like labels, basic info, and further details. |
18585 | Heterogeneous concepts might have conflicting judgements, where hybrid theories will not [Machery] |
Full Idea: The Heterogeneity Hypothesis, but not the hybrid theory of concepts, predicts that the coreferential bodies of knowledge it posits will occasionally lead to conflicting outcomes, such as inconsistent judgements. | |
From: Edouard Machery (Doing Without Concepts [2009], 3.3.2) | |
A reaction: Machery's book champions the Heterogeneous Hypothesis. Hybrid views say the aspects of a concept are integrated, but Heterogeneity says there are separate processes. My preferred 'file' approach would favour integration. |
18578 | Concepts as definitions was rejected, and concepts as prototypes, exemplars or theories proposed [Machery] |
Full Idea: Since the rejection of the classical theory of concepts (that they are definitions), three paradigms have successively emerged in the psychology of concepts: the prototype paradigm, the exemplar paradigm, and the theory paradigm. | |
From: Edouard Machery (Doing Without Concepts [2009], 4) | |
A reaction: I am becoming a fan of the 'theory theory' proposal, because the concepts centre around what explains the phenomenon, which fits my explanatory account of essentialism. Not that it's right because it agrees with me, of course..... |
18566 | Concepts should contain working memory, not long-term, because they control behaviour [Machery] |
Full Idea: We ought to reserve the term 'concept' for the bodies of knowledge in working memory, and not for our knowledge of long-term memory, because the former, and not the latter, 'control behaviour'. | |
From: Edouard Machery (Doing Without Concepts [2009], 1.4.1) | |
A reaction: [He cites the psychologist Barsalou 1993] Some more theoretical concepts can only be recalled with difficulty, and control our theorising rather than our behaviour. But we act on some theories, so there is no clear borderline. |
18575 | The concepts for a class typically include prototypes, and exemplars, and theories [Machery] |
Full Idea: Across domains (such as biology and psychology) classes of physical objects, substances and events are typically represented by a prototype, by a set of exemplars, and by a theory. | |
From: Edouard Machery (Doing Without Concepts [2009], 3.2.3) | |
A reaction: In other words he thinks that all of the major psychological theories of concepts are partially correct, and he argues for extensive pluralism in the true picture. Bad news for neat philosophy, but real life is a right old mess. |
18583 | Many categories don't seem to have a definition [Machery] |
Full Idea: For many categories there is simply no definition to learn (such as Wittgenstein's example of a 'game'). | |
From: Edouard Machery (Doing Without Concepts [2009], 4.1.4) |
18591 | Classical theory can't explain facts like typical examples being categorised quicker [Machery] |
Full Idea: The nail in the coffin of the classical theory is its lack of explanatory power. For example it doesn't explain the fact that typical x's are categorised more quickly and more reliably than atypical x's. | |
From: Edouard Machery (Doing Without Concepts [2009], 4.1.3) | |
A reaction: [He cites Rosch and Mervis: 1975:ch 5] This research launched the 'prototype' theory, which has since been challenged by the 'exemplar' and 'theory theory' rivals (and neo-empiricism, and idealisation). |
18590 | Classical theory implies variety in processing times, but this does not generally occur [Machery] |
Full Idea: If a concept is defined by means of another, such as MURDER by means of KILL, then processing the former concept should take longer in the classical theory, but several experiments show that this is not the case. | |
From: Edouard Machery (Doing Without Concepts [2009], 4.1.3) | |
A reaction: For the philosopher there is no escaping the findings of neuroscience when it comes to the study of concepts. This invites the question of the role, if any, of philosophy. I take philosophy to concern the big picture, or it is nothing. |
18594 | Knowing typical properties of things is especially useful in induction [Machery] |
Full Idea: Knowing which properties are typical of a class is particularly useful when you have to draw inductions about the members of a class. | |
From: Edouard Machery (Doing Without Concepts [2009], 4.2.1) |
18593 | The term 'prototype' is used for both typical category members, and the representation [Machery] |
Full Idea: The term 'prototype' is used ambiguously to designate the most typical members of a category, and the representation of a category. (I use the term in the second sense). | |
From: Edouard Machery (Doing Without Concepts [2009], 4.2.1 n25) |
18595 | Prototype theories are based on computation of similarities with the prototype [Machery] |
Full Idea: The most important property of prototype theories is that cognitive processes are assumed to involve the computation of the similarity between prototypes and other representations. | |
From: Edouard Machery (Doing Without Concepts [2009], 4.2.3) | |
A reaction: [He cites J.A.Hampton 1998, 2006] This presumably suits theories of the mind as largely computational (e.g. Fodor's account, based on the Turing machine). |
18596 | Prototype theorists don't tell us how we select the appropriate prototype [Machery] |
Full Idea: We are typically not told how prototypes are selected, that is, what determines whether a specific prototype is retrieved from memory in order to be involved in the categorisation process. | |
From: Edouard Machery (Doing Without Concepts [2009], 4.2.4) | |
A reaction: One of the aims of this database is to make people aware of ideas that people have already thought of. This one was spotted 2,400 years ago. It's the Third Man problem. How do you even start to think about a particular thing? |
18603 | Maybe concepts are not the typical properties, but the ideal properties [Machery] |
Full Idea: Barsalou (1983,1985) introduced the idea of ideals instead of prototypes. An ideal is a body of knowledge about the properties a thing should possess (rather than its typical actual properties). ... A 'bully' might be perfect, rather than typical. | |
From: Edouard Machery (Doing Without Concepts [2009], 4.5.3) | |
A reaction: [compressed] Machery offers this as an interesting minor variant, with little experimental support. I take idealisation to be one of the three key mental operations that enable us to think about the world (along with abstraction and generalisation). |
18605 | It is more efficient to remember the prototype, than repeatedly create it from exemplars [Machery] |
Full Idea: Instead of regularly producing a prototype out of the exemplars stored in long-term memory, it seems more efficient to extract a prototype from category members during concept learning and to use this prototype when needed. | |
From: Edouard Machery (Doing Without Concepts [2009], 6.3.2) | |
A reaction: [This is a critique of Barsalou's on-the-fly proposal for prototypes] If the exemplar theory is right, then some sort of summary must occur when faced with a new instance. So this thought favours prototypes against exemplars. |
18606 | The prototype view predicts that typical members are easier to categorise [Machery] |
Full Idea: The prototype paradigm of concepts makes the strong prediction that typical members should be easier to categorise than atypical members. | |
From: Edouard Machery (Doing Without Concepts [2009], 6.4.1) | |
A reaction: This is why philosophers should approach the topic of concepts with caution. Clearly empirical testing is going to settle this matter, not abstract theorising. |
18597 | Concepts as exemplars are based on the knowledge of properties of each particular [Machery] |
Full Idea: The exemplar paradigm of concepts is built around the idea that concepts are sets of exemplars. In turn, an exemplar is a body of knowledge about the properties believed to be possessed by a particular member of a class. | |
From: Edouard Machery (Doing Without Concepts [2009], 4.3.1) | |
A reaction: I like the fact that this theory is rooted in particulars, where the prototype theory doesn't seem to say much about how prototypes are derived. But you have to do more than just contemplate a bunch of exemplars. |
18598 | Exemplar theories need to explain how the relevant properties are selected from a multitude of them [Machery] |
Full Idea: Exemplar theories have a selection problem. Given that individuals have an infinite number of properties, they need to explain why exemplars represent such and such properties, instead of others. | |
From: Edouard Machery (Doing Without Concepts [2009], 4.3.1) | |
A reaction: I have the impression that this idea rests on the 'abundant' view of properties - that every true predicate embodies a property. A sparse view of properties might give a particular quite a restricted set of properties. |
18599 | In practice, known examples take priority over the rest of the set of exemplars [Machery] |
Full Idea: An object that is extremely similar to a specific known category member, but only moderately similar to others, is more likely to be categorised as a category member than an object that is moderately similar to most known category members. | |
From: Edouard Machery (Doing Without Concepts [2009], 4.3.3) | |
A reaction: This research finding is a problem for the Exemplar Theory, in which all the exemplars have equal status. It is even a problem for the Prototype Theory, since the known member may not be like the prototype. |
18587 | The theory account is sometimes labelled as 'knowledge' or 'explanation' in approach [Machery] |
Full Idea: The theory paradigm is sometimes called 'the knowledge approach' (Murphy 2002) or 'explanation-based views' (Komatsu 1992). | |
From: Edouard Machery (Doing Without Concepts [2009], 4) | |
A reaction: The word 'explanation' is music to my ears, so I am immediately sympathetic to the theory theory of concepts, even if it falls at the final hurdle. |
18600 | Theory Theory says category concepts are knowledge stores explaining membership [Machery] |
Full Idea: According to theory theorists, a concept of a category stores some knowledge that can explain the properties of the category members. | |
From: Edouard Machery (Doing Without Concepts [2009], 4.4.1) | |
A reaction: This is the account of essentialism which I defended in my PhD thesis. So naturally I embrace a theory of the nature of concepts which precisely dovetails with my view. I take explanation to be the central concept in metaphysics. |
18601 | Theory Theory says concepts are explanatory knowledge, and concepts form domains [Machery] |
Full Idea: The two core ideas of the Theory Theory are that concepts are bodies of knowledge that underlie explanation, where explanation rests on folk examples, and concepts are organised in domains which use similar knowledge. | |
From: Edouard Machery (Doing Without Concepts [2009], 4.4.1) | |
A reaction: Folk explanation is opposed to scientific explanation, as expounded by Hempel etc. This sounds better and better, since the domains reflect the structure of reality. Machery defends Theory Theory as part of the right answer, but it's my favourite bit. |
18607 | Theory theorists rely on best explanation, rather than on similarities [Machery] |
Full Idea: Theory theorists deny that categorisation depends on similarity; they often propose that categorisation involves some kind of inference to the best explanation. | |
From: Edouard Machery (Doing Without Concepts [2009], 6.5.1) | |
A reaction: Love it. Any theory of concepts should, in my view, be continuous with a plausible account of animal minds, and best explanations are not their strong suit. Maybe its explanations for slow categorising, and something else when it's quick. |
18608 | If categorisation is not by similarity, it seems to rely on what properties things might have [Machery] |
Full Idea: It seems that when subjects are not categorising by similarity, they are relying on what properties objects can and cannot have - that is, on some modal knowledge. | |
From: Edouard Machery (Doing Without Concepts [2009], 6.5.1) | |
A reaction: I would call this essentialist categorisation, based on the inner causal powers which generate the modal profile of the thing. We categorise bullets and nails very differently, because of their modal profiles. |
18577 | The word 'grandmother' may be two concepts, with a prototype and a definition [Machery] |
Full Idea: If a prototype of grandmothers represents them as grey-haired old women, and a definition of grandmothers represents them as being necessarily the mother of a parent ....we may fail to recognise that 'grandmother' represents two distinct concepts. | |
From: Edouard Machery (Doing Without Concepts [2009], 3.3.4) | |
A reaction: He is referring to two distinct theories about what a concept is. He argues that both theories apply, so words do indeed represent several different concepts. Nice example. |
18589 | For behaviourists concepts are dispositions to link category members to names [Machery] |
Full Idea: Behaviourists identified concepts with a mere disposition to associate category members with a given name. | |
From: Edouard Machery (Doing Without Concepts [2009], 4.1.1) | |
A reaction: This is one reason why the word 'disposition' triggers alarm bells in the immediately post-behaviourist generation of philosophers. The proposal is far too linguistic in character. |
18612 | Americans are more inclined to refer causally than the Chinese are [Machery] |
Full Idea: Tests suggest that American subjects were significantly more likely than Chinese subjects to have intuitions in line with causal-historical theories of reference. | |
From: Edouard Machery (Doing Without Concepts [2009], 8.1.3) | |
A reaction: This is an example of 'experimental philosophy' in action (of which Machery is a champion). The underlying idea is that Americans are generally more disposed to think causally than the Chinese are. So more scientific? What do the Hopi do? |
16600 | Prime matter is body considered with mere size and extension, and potential [Hobbes] |
Full Idea: Prime matter signifies body considered without the consideration of any form or accident except only magnitude or extension, and aptness to receive form and accidents. | |
From: Thomas Hobbes (De Corpore (Elements, First Section) [1655], 2.08.24) | |
A reaction: I take 'considered without' to indicate that he thinks of it as a psychological abstraction, rather than some actual existing thing. |
18613 | Artifacts can be natural kinds, when they are the object of historical enquiry [Machery] |
Full Idea: Some artifacts are the objects of inquiry in the social sciences ...such as prehistoric tools ...and hence, artifacts are bona fide natural kinds. | |
From: Edouard Machery (Doing Without Concepts [2009], 8.2.1) | |
A reaction: Presumably if a bird's nest can be a natural kind, then so can a flint axe, but then so can a mobile phone, for an urban anthropologist. 'Natural' is, to put it mildly, a tricky word. |
17252 | Acting on a body is either creating or destroying a property in it [Hobbes] |
Full Idea: A body is said to work upon or act, that is to say, do something to another body, when it either generates or destroys some accident in it. | |
From: Thomas Hobbes (De Corpore (Elements, First Section) [1655], 2.09.01) |
17254 | An effect needs a sufficient and necessary cause [Hobbes] |
Full Idea: There can be no effect but from a sufficient and necessary cause. | |
From: Thomas Hobbes (De Corpore (Elements, First Section) [1655], 2.10.02) | |
A reaction: To be compared with Mackie's subtler modern account of this matter. If two different separate causes could lead to the same result, it is hard to see how the cause must be 'necessary' (unless you say they lead to different effects). |
17235 | A cause is the complete sum of the features which necessitate the effect [Hobbes] |
Full Idea: A cause it the sum or aggregate of all such accidents, both in the agents and in the patient, as concur to the producing of the effect propounded; all of which existing together, ti cannot be understood but that the effect existenth without them. | |
From: Thomas Hobbes (De Corpore (Elements, First Section) [1655], 1.6.10) | |
A reaction: For most causes we meet, this definition will include gravity and electro-magnetism, so it doesn't help in narrowing things down. Notice that he accepts the necessity, despite his committed empiricism. |
17234 | Motion is losing one place and acquiring another [Hobbes] |
Full Idea: Motion is privation of one place, and the acquisition of another. | |
From: Thomas Hobbes (De Corpore (Elements, First Section) [1655], 1.6.06) | |
A reaction: This is basically the 'at-at' theory of motion which empiricists like, because it breaks motion down into atoms of experience. Hobbes needs an ontology which includes 'places'. |
17259 | 'Force' is the quantity of movement imposed on something [Hobbes] |
Full Idea: I define 'force' to be the impetus or quickness of motion multiplied either into itself, or into the magnitude of the movent, by means of which whereof the said movent works more or less upon the body that resists it. | |
From: Thomas Hobbes (De Corpore (Elements, First Section) [1655], 3.15.02) | |
A reaction: Not very helpful, perhaps, but it shows a view of force at quite an early date, well before Newton. |
17243 | Past times can't exist anywhere, apart from in our memories [Hobbes] |
Full Idea: When people speak of the times of their predecessors, they do not think after their predecessors are gone that their times can be any where else than in the memory of those that remember. | |
From: Thomas Hobbes (De Corpore (Elements, First Section) [1655], 2.07.03) |